The organization and ‘findability’ of such content will most likely become a more complex task. True.

But the interface(s) that proliferate the results and launch the acquisition of such ‘findability,’ will result through a more complex design task (as opposed to a complex interface). These future widgets, allowing for the exploration/interaction of such scaling content and functionality, have not been designed yet (i.e. look at the historical development of web interface features). Will these interface components be designed by a pure LIS IA? Possibly, but most likely not. Could they they be designed by an IA/ID or ID or an engineer? Most likely.

My point here is that no matter where new media/software development takes us in the future, IA and ID are joined at the hip. To say one will be dealing with more complex issues than the other is being a bit haughty.

I agree; it’s highly unlikely that an LIS IA probably won’t develop the new widgets we need (though they might help).

But do you think many such widgets really will be developed? I’ve limited my thinking on this to the familiar realm of 2D digital spaces; should we include more futuristic approaches (e.g., holographic systems, jacking directly into one’s brain) in this discussion? If we do, I’ll concede that plenty of ID innovation is on the horizon. If we stick to web browsers and similar, I still have a hard time seeing how the ID problem space will change all that much.

And yes, IA and ID are joined at the hip, but they’re definitely NOT the same thing. I might also add that IA and UE are joined at the hip, as are IA and CM, as are IA and KM, as are IA and organizational psychology… Not trying to be flippant; just want to point out that there is a reason for all of these differences, even if there is much overlap. Part of my hope with this discussion is to remind people that those distinctions are important.

But let’s focus on a specific case; take a controlled vocabulary/thesuarus for example. The development of the CV is a rich and consuming practice, and can be performed on various levels depending on requirements and the database structure in place. But the intriguing aspect of the CV is that once it has been developed and introduced to a database environment, the interface possibilities for it’s implementation are practically immeasureable.

Are we to say that unless we’re talking about “holographic systems, (or) jacking directly into one’s brain” that innovation is not possible? Just take a look at what Plumb did with Thinkmap. And that was 4 years ago. Are we conceding convention? Are there not cutting edge interaction design solutions remaining for CV’s/search engines within the web environment? I think yes, there are.

Reminding people that distinctions exist between professions/roles is a positive thing. But if I said, “C’mon folks, usability engineering has no weight in comparison to the complexities of interaction design” to “promote discussion,” I would be wrong in doing so.

If I’m alone on this, so be it.

BTW, I’m still planning on getting your book, because I do respect your knowledge as an IA. But now, I’m going to steal it from B&N.

On a different tack, Lou I’m curious, if pushed for a one word description of your “occupation” what would it be? Designer, librarian, architect, other?